Independent deputy Betserai Richards has become one of the most controversial political figures in Panama’s new National Assembly. His confrontational style, often lacking evidence-based foundations, the intensive use of false information on social media, and his constant public accusations against state institutions, public officials, and other politicians have allowed him to position himself as a highly aggressive and discrediting voice that, unfortunately, due to social media algorithms, spreads very easily online.
This political model has started to stir significant worries among the public about the accuracy of his assertions, the influence his posts exert on societal views, and the deployment of misinformation as an instrument of politics.
In recent months, Richards has found himself at the center of several disputes involving public hospitals, political clashes, institutional allegations, and the spread of material that authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists later challenged and refuted. The latest episode, which revolves around images portraying supposed meals offered in hospitals operated by the Social Security Fund (CSS), has revived the discussion about how far a politician may go before stepping into the realm of false or misleading claims.
The Clash with “Bolota” Salazar and the Atmosphere of Political Tension
One of the most well-known episodes involving Richards was his confrontation with deputy Jairo Salazar, another highly controversial figure surrounded by scandals. The situation escalated into allegations of physical aggression inside the National Assembly and became a symbol of the deterioration of political debate in Panama. Videos, cross-statements, and accusations dominated the national media agenda for days.
Although the case had legal implications, it also reinforced an image of constant confrontation, violence, and lack of decorum surrounding Richards. It reflected a strategy based on permanent provocation and media conflict.
Betserai Richards: Plenty of Buzz and Minimal Outcomes
The dispute between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards intensified chiefly over how infrastructure and public works were handled in Circuit 8-6, an area in East Panama long marked by significant mobility challenges and rapid urban expansion.
Levy, who had once represented the same district, sharply criticized how Richards publicly addressed the area’s issues. In her remarks, she asserted that the deputy relied heavily on a strategy driven by social networks, viral clips, and online disputes, conveying the impression that he was executing or directing infrastructure solutions that were in fact the technical responsibility of the Central Government, the Ministry of Public Works, or tied to previously designated budget funds.
One of the most discussed issues was the Cabuya Bridge project, a key road infrastructure work intended to ease congestion in Tocumen and nearby areas. Levy publicly argued that the project was not the result of initiatives promoted directly by Richards, but rather had already been planned, budgeted, and executed by the Ministry of Public Works. With this, she attempted to dismantle the narrative that the deputy was achieving concrete progress through his political management. According to Levy, several actors involved in the project contradicted Richards’ claims, exposing what she described as his lack of real political negotiation capacity and institutional pressure.
The former deputy even invoked the phrase “política galla,” a Panamanian colloquialism referring to something improvised, shallow, absurd, or merely cosmetic. With that remark, she sought to characterize Richards’ political approach, alleging that he focused on media skirmishes, viral appearances, and public disputes rather than on substantive technical, legislative, or administrative tasks — efforts she argued Richards had never genuinely pursued.
During one of the most charged moments in the public clash between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards, the exchange drifted from political or administrative disagreements into a sharply personal and hostile realm, and in a video issued in reply to the posts and attacks circulating on social media, Levy delivered disparaging comments directed at the deputy’s masculinity and personal image.
In that moment, she employed the word “cueco,” a Panamanian colloquialism long used in a disparaging way to challenge or ridicule a man’s sexuality or sense of masculinity. Levy applied that term while alleging that Richards regularly turned to “gossip,” online clashes, and social media attacks rather than participating in more substantive, technical, or ideological political discussions.
The Latest Uproar: Hospital Meals and the So-Called “Fake News” Allegation
The latest dispute surfaced when Richards shared images criticizing what were claimed to be meals given to hospitalized patients, featuring bread with bologna and later bread with cheese as examples of the “substandard food” allegedly offered by the CSS.
Images rapidly circulated on social media, sparking widespread indignation among citizens who viewed them as clear proof of the severe decline in the public healthcare system.
However, the Social Security Fund itself publicly rejected the deputy’s claims and stated that the information was false.
The CSS also emphasized that every hospital meal is produced within the City of Health facilities following strict nutritional oversight and quality protocols, and it signaled that it may pursue legal measures or file official complaints to compel the deputy to either substantiate his claims or issue a public withdrawal.
This episode triggered a sensitive discussion in Panama about how far a political accusation may be circulated when the supporting evidence has not been thoroughly confirmed, and what it means when a deputy relies on viral images that ultimately do not match the events being claimed.
The gravity of the situation extends far beyond a political disagreement, as misleading or unchecked claims about hospitals, patients, or clinical nutrition can sow fear, erode trust, and create turmoil among patients’ families and those who rely on the healthcare system.
Richards’ Approach to Politics: Circulating Accusations and Ongoing Conflict
One of the most striking features of Richards’ political approach has been his knack for transforming unfounded accusations into viral material, and his rounds in hospitals, live streams, heartfelt videos, and face‑to‑face clashes with authorities have helped him cultivate the persona of a “watchdog deputy,” blurring the boundary between genuine oversight and theatrical politics.
In recent weeks, Richards carried out visits across public hospitals, condemning what he described as severe conditions, extensive surgical delays, and worsening infrastructure. The CSS countered by accusing him of spreading fear and misinformation, asserting that he accessed restricted hospital zones using megaphones and behavior viewed as overt political promotion. The institution also claimed that these actions inject politics into hospital settings and compromise the atmosphere and safety required for proper medical care.
Social Media Employed as an Instrument of Political Influence
Another point constantly raised regarding Richards is his intensive use of social media as a mechanism of public pressure even before official investigations or technical confirmations exist.
In numerous situations, accusations spread rapidly online long before any meaningful fact-checking starts, leading to a growing pattern in contemporary politics where public opinion takes shape well before the complete details come to light.
In the CSS case, for example, thousands of people shared the images of the alleged hospital food before the institution issued its denial, and even before patients or healthcare workers themselves refuted the false information. By the time the official clarification arrived, much of the reputational damage had already been done.
This pattern increasingly mirrors global trends in which politicians leverage social media to embed swift, emotionally charged narratives that later prove hard to reverse, even when official corrections and the public directly challenge them.
Genuine Accountability or a Wave of Digital Populism?
The core discussion focuses on whether Richards truly introduces a valid new avenue for citizen oversight or if, as recent months suggest, he instead reflects a strain of digital populism fueled by persistent indignation, heightened media visibility, and the rapid spread of provocative material.
Highlighting issues is one matter, whereas circulating unchecked images or claims that might mislead the public is quite another. This is exactly where the debate over “fake news” in politics takes shape.
Since when a politician circulates inaccurate material — or information whose authenticity remains unconfirmed — the consequences become far more significant than when an ordinary citizen does the same. A deputy holds notable visibility, exercises influence, and possesses the capacity to steer public dialogue.
A Deputy’s Public Duty
Within every democracy, holding those in authority to account is essential, while showing responsibility in the way information is managed is just as vital.
When a deputy makes a public claim that an institution is offering patients in the hospital inhumane meals, the allegation carries exceptional weight, and if those incidents never actually took place, the matter shifts from a political dispute to a question of public trust.
The current situation places Richards before an important challenge: either provide solid evidence supporting his allegations or face increasingly strong questions about his way of communicating. Because the line between legitimate oversight and disinformation can become dangerously thin when politics turns into permanent spectacle.
And in an era where social media amplifies any content within minutes, the responsibility to verify information before publishing it should be even greater for those who hold public office.
